Defending under the influence

This is a discussion on Defending under the influence within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; You gotta hand it to MadMac, he cuts right to the chase. And I agree with him.
We have a God given right, and a ...

You gotta hand it to MadMac, he cuts right to the chase. And I agree with him.

We have a God given right, and a legal right in all 50 states to employ lethal force to defend against death, or crippling injury.

However, I will say, that in all states, prosecutors have what's called prosecutorial discretion. And that some states are out and out governed by insanity.

In my state, we have castle doctrine and you would certainly be good to go shooting in your home. And to address one of the questions by the OP, the law provides immunity from civil suits by the bad guy or his heirs/estate. As a matter of fact, the law stipulates if forced entry is made into your home, you may assume it's a deadly force situation whether the person is armed or not.

I don't know about Mass, NJ, Maryland, and other places. They are a few of the places which seem to be governed by insanity. So, while there may be no criminal charge against you for using lethal force, they may allow the family to sue you civilly for everything you own. And they (the government), would probably have a big smile on their face while you are getting sued by the dead guys family.

Do you also remember what he went through? He got very lucky in the end

True. But... Probably went through a lot, but suspect he to this day preferred his choice, and consequences, over what his "victim" James Ramseur would subsequently put that 18 year old pregnant girl through on the Claremont Village housing project rooftop.

So, while there may be no criminal charge against you for using lethal force, they may allow the family to sue you civilly for everything you own.

True. But... You can get sued for everything you own, much more easily in fact, if the invaders slip and fall on your walkway before they even get to the point of invading! Castle doctrine won't help you there.

If you have taken the responsibility to own a firearm for self defense and you are alone, a hermit and xenophobic, then live free.

If you have responsibilities of family and friends and neighbors then hopefully that decision was at the end of a long series of decisions including obtaining enough health, life and umbrella insurance to reduce the economic impact of violent encounters, training and maintenance of first aid skills and CPR in the event violence happen to someone around you (especially if you did not intend it, but rather it was from overpenetration into your neighborhood or simply a miss, etc), appropriate steps to harden your house including proper upkeeep and an alarm system to reduce the chance of violent invasion, and for those who decide to own dogs, an honest assessment of your animal, your actual dedication to its training and temperment and whether you have a truly trained guard dog or some beast that s as likely to bite the face off a girlscout as it is to defend the home.

Amazingly I've still never seen a defensive pistol course that requires proof of certification of training in, say, CPR or better yet actually provide such training during the course. All well and good to preach your responsibility for every bullet you fire but its all just worthless hot air if you don't actually walk the walk to me.

Most gun owners, in my mind correctly, would rather be "judged by 12 than carried by six" and all, but the feel good-i-ness of that quip ends once you begin to think through what that means (or forbid, actually go through it).

At the end of the day sometimes you just aren't going to win either way.

Posts are for entertainment only. I have no training, database, background, knowledge of law, skills, or conviction of belief that anything I post is safe or relevant for your situation and bear no responsibility for any actions or events related to your interpretation of any of my post(s).

Is this going to be the thread with all the neo-Prohibitionists tsk-tsking about never drinking, and chiding those who do?

I know everyone here never overindulges and everyone on this board is either a teetotaler or someone who sips one drink an hour...... so no need to inform everyone else just how abstemious you are. We already know.

Bottom line: if you are using your ccw for the legal gold standard of self-defense: imminent death, sexual assault, or grave bodily harm (especially in your own home), none of this hypothesizing makes a darn bit of difference. Which state you reside in makes not one whit of difference, either. If you use your firearm to save your life in the face of death, you deal with the fallout happy to be alive.

The only issues I ever see raised about alcohol and guns are the clowns that get boozed up and use a firearm for things other than legitimate self-defense. Perhaps a poster can cite a case where someone had a clear-cut self-defense shooting while intoxicated, and was subsequently convicted and/or sued.

And Shepards we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee,
Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, So that our feet may swiftly carry out thy command,
And we shall flow a river forth to Thee, And teeming with souls shall it ever be,

In my state of SC, you can defend yourself anywhere (that's legal to carry) at home or in public while under the influence. It better be an actual case of SD and not some contrived notion from a drunken stupor. Still even legal, booze & firearms, it's a recipe for disaster!

As good a reply as the rest of them. I would add, though, that civil actions may still occur even though in SC, a good shoot negates civil responsibility. That does not mean that there is not a small crack in that immunity clause. As "The Shadow Knows", booze and firearms are a recipe for disaster, no matter where you are.

Reminds of the song "Bubba shot the juke box". The drunk guy shoots the juke box with a .45 and when the sheriff says "reckless discharge of a gun, that's what the officer is claiming, Bubba hollered out reckless hell, I hit just where I was aimin"

So to sum up, if you point a gun at me in my home I will shoot you first and more than once. Drunk or not.

Hypothetical situation:
After a long hard week, Harry settles into his favorite chair with a bottle of Booker Noe's. Several hours later and well over the legal limit to drive, he drifts off and is later awakened by a home invasion. After the BG points a gun at him, Harry responds with three hollow points, center mass. When the police arrive, they note that Harry is intoxicated. The BG dies at the hospital. What will the DA do? Living in a bad state, Harry is sued for wrongful death by the BG's family. What will happen to Harry?

In our State, nothing should happen. It is covered in the law here, that even if intoxicated past the legal limit, a person (esp at home) is "justified" in defending their life with a gun, or anything else for that matter. They can defend their life with a gun, as long as soon as the threat is over..... they put the gun back up or put it down.... and don't continue to have it in their possession.

However, it better look, smell and feel like an actual self-defense situation .... since the judgment of the person would be considered impaired.

I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers --- Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

Is this going to be the thread with all the neo-Prohibitionists tsk-tsking about never drinking, and chiding those who do?

I know everyone here never overindulges and everyone on this board is either a teetotaler or someone who sips one drink an hour...... so no need to inform everyone else just how abstemious you are. We already know.

Bottom line: if you are using your ccw for the legal gold standard of self-defense: imminent death, sexual assault, or grave bodily harm (especially in your own home), none of this hypothesizing makes a darn bit of difference. Which state you reside in makes not one whit of difference, either. If you use your firearm to save your life in the face of death, you deal with the fallout happy to be alive.

The only issues I ever see raised about alcohol and guns are the clowns that get boozed up and use a firearm for things other than legitimate self-defense. Perhaps a poster can cite a case where someone had a clear-cut self-defense shooting while intoxicated, and was subsequently convicted and/or sued.

Thank you Mac: You said it all, although I think that those who you dismiss with tsk, tsk are really agreeing with your last paragraph and are replying with an "I told you so" if you should find yourself under arrest for wanton use of the firearm while drunk and the fact that you will be sued even if you were correct in a shoot but were drunk at the time. (that was a long sentence). The other fact in many states like SC not in the house but out in a restaurant is the fact that CC is not allowed in liquor-serving establishments. You have a few, are walking to your car and the "what if" happens" and you defend yourself--kindly explain to me what you intend to tell the LEO/prosecutor/civil attorney how you happen to have a firearm on your person once you left the restaurant, which was illegal in the first place.

If your going to drink then no guns ever. You have to resign yourself to the fact your vulnerable till sober again. Just like the designated driver one should have a designated CCW'er along if their going to drink. I don't care how good a drinker you are or how mature or well trained. Nobody's judgment is at 100% with alcohol in their system.